“As World War II ended, the world beat its collective chest defiantly and proclaimed it would “never forget” the genocide of the Holocaust so that it could “never again” be repeated. The world- as history has now proven- has a short memory. The Holocaust was not the world’s first genocide and it has not been the last” (Kahn 2007, 1).
In closing I believe Darfur is an issue that we- meaning protestors, other countries/governments, organizations, the citizens of the United States, and citizens around the world- need to solve. This genocide, which began in February of 2003, has not ended. U.N. Peacekeepers are waiting to enter the region, but the Sudanese army and government which support that army will not allow them entry. Governments around the world cannot invade Sudan for many reasons discussed in Text-Based Assignment #1. China becomes a huge player in the Darfur issue. China owns 2/3 of Sudan’s oil, which they also export, and currently have soldiers stationed in Sudan protecting their oil. The Save Darfur Movement, United States government, Britain, France, Olympic Athletes, George Clooney and many more people/organizations want china to take a stand. Demand Sudan let peacekeepers into their country or else they will not export their oil. Sudan, although currently involved in war and genocide, is economically dependant on China to support their horrible economy and troops. If China would stop paying Sudan for oil and oil lands, the killings would eventually stop because they would have no way of purchasing weapons, ammunition, and food for their soldiers and citizens. This is my plan, but it could possibly backfire. I would hope China’s threat scares the Sudanese enough and they allow peacekeepers to enter. But if the Sudanese do not believe China will follow through with their threat, then China could be out of oil which would devastate their country along with Sudan. China must use their leverage in the situation because no other country or government has leverage to use.
The Olympics will be used as a protesting ground for many social issues, especially Darfur. China’s slogan for the 2008 Summer Games is “One World, One Dream”. But one world and one dream for whom, only China? Viewers tuning into see the games will wonder why so many athletes are wearing clothing items that say Darfur, Save Darfur, and/or Team Darfur. Even if protesters cannot go to China to demonstrate at the Olympics, the athletes competing at the games will be there advocating. These advocates will not be wearing clothing items that say Nike or items that represent their country. They are playing for one dream, the dream of a peaceful Darfur.
As far as the Save Darfur movement goes, I think it has been some-what successful, but will thrive in the upcoming months. The Olympics begin at the start of August; the movie Darfur Now hits theaters November 2nd, 2008; and the Presidential election is two days later on November 4th 2008. Darfur will be an issue which Barack Obama and John McCain will have to take a stand on. What are they going to do about? Publicity about Darfur will start in August with the Olympics, and continue through the September and October advertising for Darfur Now.
The only reason I think the movement has not been success is many people still do not know about Darfur. My friends, family, and even some professors had no idea what events were occurring in Darfur when I asked them. It’s sad something so horrific can be occurring and people do not even know about. The Save Darfur Movement uses celebrity ambassadors, t-shirts, website, concerts, rallies, and wristbands to get the word out. They use the same tactics as past social movements, but they have yet to gain enough momentum in order to solve the problem. From today and until the Presidential election will be the time period which determines the fate of Darfur. The Save Darfur movement must use these key days and events to inform citizens and get them involved. I cannot predict the future, but I see the fate of Darfur being positive. I think the American people, governments around the world, and China are going to realize how passionately people feel about Darfur.
Samantha Power’s states: “The U.S. policies crafted in response to each case of genocide…were not accidental products of neglect. They were concrete choices made by this country’s most influential decision makers after unspoken and explicit weighing of costs and benefits.”( Power 2002, 508). Samantha Power states the most important factor of why nations of people do not become involved with genocide: cost. The United States and the UN will be the ones left holding the bill for Darfur when all is said and done. Because these displaced people have nothing, they will not be able to pay anyone back for their efforts. China already has claimed Sudan’s oil. Nothing Sudan has to offer is of interest to the United States, any other country, or to the United Nations. Genocide and mass murders are still occurring in Darfur today. Hopefully this will be the last genocide, but the end to Darfur’s horrific struggle cannot be seen. Martin Luther King, Jr. has summed up the end result of genocide and the crisis in Darfur in one sentence: “In the end, we will remember not the works of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” (Kahn 2007,1).
Kahn, Leora. Darfur Twenty Years of War and Genocide in Sudan. Brooklyn, NY: Powerhouse Books, 2007.
Power, Samantha. “A Problem From Hell”. New York, New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Related News Articles
Dream for Darfur group gives IOC an 'F' for Sudan response. 27 Jan. 2008. USA Today.Com. 28 April 2008 http://www.dreamfordarfur.org/
This USA Today article discussed the International Olympics Committee (IOC). The activist group Dream for Darfur believes the IOC should use their leverage of the Olympics that are going to be held in Beijing, China as a way to force change in the Sudan region. The article states that threatening China with not holding the Olympics in their nation may be a way to force some sort of change in Sudan. Dream for Darfur gave a failing grade to IOC due to their lack of effort to end the suffering in Sudan. This article is from January, but is still significant because the IOC knew this crisis was going to be big. I think protests in China may not necessarily be a problem since people must posses a visa to visit China, whether it is for two days or two years.
Chinese President Pushes Sudan on Darfur. 2 Feb. 2007. The Washington Post.com. 28 April 2008 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200251.html>
The Washington Post’s online article discusses China and Sudan. Chinese President Hu Jintao told Sudan’s leader, Omar al-Bashir, that he must let the UN send peacekeepers and become involved. China’s relations with Sudan have been greatly debated since conflict broke out in the southern region of Darfur in February of 2003. China has a great interest in Sudan because of the oil exports of that country. The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that it does not want to become involved in the Darfur issue mainly because any intervention could cripple China’s resources it receives from that region which could be devastating to China’ huge population.
Why I think We Can Still Save Darfur. 28 Feb 2008The Washington Post.com. 26 June 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202379.html
This last article was written by Andrew S. Natsios who served on a special envoy created by President Bush and was sent to Sudan in 2005. He talked with victims, met with humanitarians and humanitarian groups, and visited various Sudanese regions, other than just Darfur. The author has learned how the people all over Sudan feel along with the displaced victims on the border of Chad and Darfur. The author believes the regimes and people in charge are what movements and the government should be focusing on because they are leading the problem, not the Chinese or China. He makes a good point. I believe the regimes and leaders must be taken out of power, but we must first gain access into the country before we even think about that. The message and information in this article is strong since it was written by a primary source.
This USA Today article discussed the International Olympics Committee (IOC). The activist group Dream for Darfur believes the IOC should use their leverage of the Olympics that are going to be held in Beijing, China as a way to force change in the Sudan region. The article states that threatening China with not holding the Olympics in their nation may be a way to force some sort of change in Sudan. Dream for Darfur gave a failing grade to IOC due to their lack of effort to end the suffering in Sudan. This article is from January, but is still significant because the IOC knew this crisis was going to be big. I think protests in China may not necessarily be a problem since people must posses a visa to visit China, whether it is for two days or two years.
Chinese President Pushes Sudan on Darfur. 2 Feb. 2007. The Washington Post.com. 28 April 2008 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200251.html>
The Washington Post’s online article discusses China and Sudan. Chinese President Hu Jintao told Sudan’s leader, Omar al-Bashir, that he must let the UN send peacekeepers and become involved. China’s relations with Sudan have been greatly debated since conflict broke out in the southern region of Darfur in February of 2003. China has a great interest in Sudan because of the oil exports of that country. The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that it does not want to become involved in the Darfur issue mainly because any intervention could cripple China’s resources it receives from that region which could be devastating to China’ huge population.
Why I think We Can Still Save Darfur. 28 Feb 2008The Washington Post.com. 26 June 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202379.html
This last article was written by Andrew S. Natsios who served on a special envoy created by President Bush and was sent to Sudan in 2005. He talked with victims, met with humanitarians and humanitarian groups, and visited various Sudanese regions, other than just Darfur. The author has learned how the people all over Sudan feel along with the displaced victims on the border of Chad and Darfur. The author believes the regimes and people in charge are what movements and the government should be focusing on because they are leading the problem, not the Chinese or China. He makes a good point. I believe the regimes and leaders must be taken out of power, but we must first gain access into the country before we even think about that. The message and information in this article is strong since it was written by a primary source.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Opinion Post #4
In her piece, the Bono-izaton of activism, Naomi Klein calls many of you, “the Pro-Logo generation that is more likely to buy a wristband and ticket to Live Earth than hit the streets in protest.” Even those of you who are close to 40 like I am probably have at least considered wearing a rubber wristband or pink ribbon at some point! Klein argues that this “corporatized” form of protest is “less dangerous and less powerful" than grassroots demonstrations. Looking back on and incorporating references to the movements we looked at this semester either in readings or on the internet, please give your opinion as to the following:
Is Klein correct in her assessment of activism today? Is it really less effective? Less dangerous? If Klein is correct, what factors do you think have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests? If Klein is wrong in her assessment, what is it about today’s social movements that you think has the potential to be powerful?
No, I do not think Klein is correct in her assessment of protests/movements in today’s world. The reason protests were so common in the 60s and 70s can be attributed to many fatcors. The first important factor was the babyboomers (BB) becoming young adults. For example, music around this time period totally changed with the presence of Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Parents of the BB despised this music since they were accustomed to the popular Frank Sinatra, but the BB protested and revolted against their parents because they loved the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles opened the doors for future artists, but it is the BB who allowed them to open these doors by: protests and revolts. The same BB’s helped fight for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay and Lesbian Rights, and the Vietnam War movement because they realized how powerful they could be if they just banned together. Protesting also achieved the end of the Vietnam War.
Perhaps nothing has been that important in an overall societal view lately? But if there was an issue that was detrimental to our society or the majority of society’s belief’s? I know Americans would protest. For example, when the idea was on the table regarding Iraq and the possibility of a draft, people became horrified. It would have been a non-gendered draft meaning that even women 18-25 would be drafted along with the men of those ages. There is no way in hell that our parents, majority of which are a part of the BB, would just let their children be drafted. They have seen first hand what Vietnam has done to their friends, familiy, and society. The possible draftees had also learned from Vietnam, but through history books and not personal experiences.
The reason protests have dimisinshed is because the majority of citizens in the United States are happy or content. Protests occurr when the government or people in charge are not listening to their citizens wants and needs. Unequal treatement by the government has been the basis of the majority of movements which occurred in the United States. The Civil Rights movement happened because black citizens were displeased with their government treating them unequally. The Gay Rights movement and the Women’s movement are other movements also based on unfair applications of law . Lack of protests during the last few decades should be viewed positivley since now the majority of citizens are content with laws and government treatment. If Klein wants to see protests, then she must want to see a socitey who is discughsted with some aspect of their lives. I’m not saying the period of protests has ended, I just think that nothing ‘big’ enough has occurred where the citizens of the United States need to ban together to change something. When something is not affecting you and/or your community directly, for example Darfur, then protesting is not as necessary because the people areoung you are not in immediate danger.
The internet has also helped alter the ways in which people decide to become active with movement. Since communication can be done faster than ever, people know of injustices from the beginning; before riots, protests, and rallies need to be resorted to. Rallies are still useful ways to protest and they have not been totally scrapped. For the Save Darfur movement, rallies only occurred in big cities like NY, CA, Washington D.C., etc. Just because people changed their way of protesting and becoming involved in movements does not mean they are less effective. Our approaches to conflicts have evolved overtime.
Although I have stated the many reasons why Klein is wrong with her defition of protestors today, I do think there is a problem. I think that people are scared of their government and democracy. People elect those individuals in charge and the government should be afriad of its people, and not the other way around. I think young adults are a lot more selfish in todays world and focused on their little problems in stead of thinking about the big picture. The new commercial advertisements for the army have the slogan “An Army of One.” But isn’t an army a group of people? The government and army has realized the change in its peoples wants/beliefes and have changed accordingly. “An Army of One” attratcs people who want to be independent, but we are suppose to be working together. Even though I believe Klein is wrong, I also want people to ste-up, even though their lives are busy.
Is Klein correct in her assessment of activism today? Is it really less effective? Less dangerous? If Klein is correct, what factors do you think have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests? If Klein is wrong in her assessment, what is it about today’s social movements that you think has the potential to be powerful?
No, I do not think Klein is correct in her assessment of protests/movements in today’s world. The reason protests were so common in the 60s and 70s can be attributed to many fatcors. The first important factor was the babyboomers (BB) becoming young adults. For example, music around this time period totally changed with the presence of Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Parents of the BB despised this music since they were accustomed to the popular Frank Sinatra, but the BB protested and revolted against their parents because they loved the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles opened the doors for future artists, but it is the BB who allowed them to open these doors by: protests and revolts. The same BB’s helped fight for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay and Lesbian Rights, and the Vietnam War movement because they realized how powerful they could be if they just banned together. Protesting also achieved the end of the Vietnam War.
Perhaps nothing has been that important in an overall societal view lately? But if there was an issue that was detrimental to our society or the majority of society’s belief’s? I know Americans would protest. For example, when the idea was on the table regarding Iraq and the possibility of a draft, people became horrified. It would have been a non-gendered draft meaning that even women 18-25 would be drafted along with the men of those ages. There is no way in hell that our parents, majority of which are a part of the BB, would just let their children be drafted. They have seen first hand what Vietnam has done to their friends, familiy, and society. The possible draftees had also learned from Vietnam, but through history books and not personal experiences.
The reason protests have dimisinshed is because the majority of citizens in the United States are happy or content. Protests occurr when the government or people in charge are not listening to their citizens wants and needs. Unequal treatement by the government has been the basis of the majority of movements which occurred in the United States. The Civil Rights movement happened because black citizens were displeased with their government treating them unequally. The Gay Rights movement and the Women’s movement are other movements also based on unfair applications of law . Lack of protests during the last few decades should be viewed positivley since now the majority of citizens are content with laws and government treatment. If Klein wants to see protests, then she must want to see a socitey who is discughsted with some aspect of their lives. I’m not saying the period of protests has ended, I just think that nothing ‘big’ enough has occurred where the citizens of the United States need to ban together to change something. When something is not affecting you and/or your community directly, for example Darfur, then protesting is not as necessary because the people areoung you are not in immediate danger.
The internet has also helped alter the ways in which people decide to become active with movement. Since communication can be done faster than ever, people know of injustices from the beginning; before riots, protests, and rallies need to be resorted to. Rallies are still useful ways to protest and they have not been totally scrapped. For the Save Darfur movement, rallies only occurred in big cities like NY, CA, Washington D.C., etc. Just because people changed their way of protesting and becoming involved in movements does not mean they are less effective. Our approaches to conflicts have evolved overtime.
Although I have stated the many reasons why Klein is wrong with her defition of protestors today, I do think there is a problem. I think that people are scared of their government and democracy. People elect those individuals in charge and the government should be afriad of its people, and not the other way around. I think young adults are a lot more selfish in todays world and focused on their little problems in stead of thinking about the big picture. The new commercial advertisements for the army have the slogan “An Army of One.” But isn’t an army a group of people? The government and army has realized the change in its peoples wants/beliefes and have changed accordingly. “An Army of One” attratcs people who want to be independent, but we are suppose to be working together. Even though I believe Klein is wrong, I also want people to ste-up, even though their lives are busy.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Opinion Based Assignment #3
Think about the contrast discussed in the first week between Dr. Martin Luther King’s adherence to civil disobedience and Malcolm X’s mandate of “by any means necessary.” Are any of the “radical” tactics and practices discussed in this week’s readings, for example the Clothesline project, sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement, or “outing” acceptable? If so, which ones and why?
I do not believe in the pro-life radical tactics. Sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement is something that sickens me so much, that I do not have words to describe it! L On Saturday mornings is when the non-profit organization Planned Parenthood does its abortions, no other days. People involved with the pro-life social movement obviously know this and stand out there every Saturday. I know people have the right to assemble in America, but whenever I am driving by my local Planned Parenthood in Tempe, AZ on a Saturday morning I just become sick. I cannot imagine being one of those girls who are going there to have an abortion. They are making one of the most difficult decisions of their lives, that will most likely leave them with either emotional or health related side effects, and they have to walk by these people. These people that do not know them, know of their current situation, or if they are even in a state to raise a child. People usually have abortions because they cannot raise a child in their current situation, so if they did have the child and were not capable of properly raising it, it could turn out to be a murderer, rapist, or thief due to lack of parental involvement. The pro-life movement is trying to make drastic decisions concerning the live of people they do not even know. All social movements are trying to make decisions about people or for people to better them, but what if these people do not want their ‘help’? What if the United States tried to force civil rights on blacks and they did not want them? Would protestors have continued this movement if the people who this movement affected did not want these rights?
However, I do kind of agree with the radical tactics of the Clothesline Project. Although some individuals may not support the project, I think it empowers the women that have been victims and may even give them some form of closure. I do not know how I feel about the shirts that would display the names of people who were rapists. I mean what if a girl said she was raped, but really just drank too much and may have consented to sex drunkenly, but she would not have if she was sober? I have heard of this sort of situation many times; some people say its still rape and others do not. What if the names of the men on some of the T-shirts were involved in this type of situation? I can see why the school’s administration said ‘no way’ and I can also see how this would anger people. I can see both sides of the argument, but cannot pick a side.
In other words, what, in your opinion, are the circumstances under which “radical” or even anarchic protest might be a valid option for a social movement to undertake? What are the political or social circumstances that make it viable for a social movement to engage in “in your face” actions. If your answer is that social movements never should engage in radical protest, why do you think that way?
I think some of the tactics used in the Civil Rights movement were radical. The sit-ins and protests were pretty intense and were caught on camera. These radical tactics were necessary because the government and some of its citizens were not recognizing other citizen’s hardships. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement were citizens who were saying they we upset, but no one wanted to listen. Protestors who were against the Vietnam were also citizens displeased with their government not listening to them. Darfurians are Arab Muslim citizens of Sudan whose government and African-Christian citizens turned against and started killing. “In your face” actions are needed when the government is not listening to its citizens and the ignored citizens lives are in danger and/or being severely affected. Even though Darfurians are not citizens of the United States, we still need to act responsibly since the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world.
I do not believe in the pro-life radical tactics. Sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement is something that sickens me so much, that I do not have words to describe it! L On Saturday mornings is when the non-profit organization Planned Parenthood does its abortions, no other days. People involved with the pro-life social movement obviously know this and stand out there every Saturday. I know people have the right to assemble in America, but whenever I am driving by my local Planned Parenthood in Tempe, AZ on a Saturday morning I just become sick. I cannot imagine being one of those girls who are going there to have an abortion. They are making one of the most difficult decisions of their lives, that will most likely leave them with either emotional or health related side effects, and they have to walk by these people. These people that do not know them, know of their current situation, or if they are even in a state to raise a child. People usually have abortions because they cannot raise a child in their current situation, so if they did have the child and were not capable of properly raising it, it could turn out to be a murderer, rapist, or thief due to lack of parental involvement. The pro-life movement is trying to make drastic decisions concerning the live of people they do not even know. All social movements are trying to make decisions about people or for people to better them, but what if these people do not want their ‘help’? What if the United States tried to force civil rights on blacks and they did not want them? Would protestors have continued this movement if the people who this movement affected did not want these rights?
However, I do kind of agree with the radical tactics of the Clothesline Project. Although some individuals may not support the project, I think it empowers the women that have been victims and may even give them some form of closure. I do not know how I feel about the shirts that would display the names of people who were rapists. I mean what if a girl said she was raped, but really just drank too much and may have consented to sex drunkenly, but she would not have if she was sober? I have heard of this sort of situation many times; some people say its still rape and others do not. What if the names of the men on some of the T-shirts were involved in this type of situation? I can see why the school’s administration said ‘no way’ and I can also see how this would anger people. I can see both sides of the argument, but cannot pick a side.
In other words, what, in your opinion, are the circumstances under which “radical” or even anarchic protest might be a valid option for a social movement to undertake? What are the political or social circumstances that make it viable for a social movement to engage in “in your face” actions. If your answer is that social movements never should engage in radical protest, why do you think that way?
I think some of the tactics used in the Civil Rights movement were radical. The sit-ins and protests were pretty intense and were caught on camera. These radical tactics were necessary because the government and some of its citizens were not recognizing other citizen’s hardships. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement were citizens who were saying they we upset, but no one wanted to listen. Protestors who were against the Vietnam were also citizens displeased with their government not listening to them. Darfurians are Arab Muslim citizens of Sudan whose government and African-Christian citizens turned against and started killing. “In your face” actions are needed when the government is not listening to its citizens and the ignored citizens lives are in danger and/or being severely affected. Even though Darfurians are not citizens of the United States, we still need to act responsibly since the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Text Based Assignment #3
What are the primary emotions that the social movement you are following appears to encourage in its members?
I think there are many emotions in the Save Darfur movement that attract protestors. I think one of the emotions that attract people to the Save Darfur movement is love for mankind. Love for the victims of Darfur leads to compassion for these people that did nothing to trigger the horrific events that have happened to them, their friends, their homes, and country. I think love and compassion is responsible for drawing people towards this movement and is also responsible for keeping people involved. People can only imagine the plight of others and they develop a desire to help them (p.159). Grief, sorrow, and loss are other emotions that draw to people to Save Darfur. People who have been victims of past genocides, or people who know victims of past genocides, resonate with these emotions and Darfur. They have experienced these ‘sad’ emotions and perhaps by becoming involved, they believe they can prevent others from expienecing them. Fear and dread are also among the emotions present in the Save Darfur movement. James A. Jasper says that “fear and dread arise from a sense of threat to one’s daily routines or moral beliefs; they can paralyze but also be developed into outrage” (p.159). For me, knowing about Darfur is a threat to my moral beliefs and is the reason why I have continued to follow this movement for an over a year now. I believe in helping people who cannot necessarily help themselves. Darfurians cannot help themselves because they have no one to turn to. Their own government is responsible for supplying the weapons that are being used to kill them.
I took a class at Arizona State University called Genocide, The Holocaust, and Human Rights (JUS 394). The information taught in this class was about all the genocides that ever happened in the world. What was common with every case of genocide is: that when genocide is occurring, people/governments respond so slowly and it is always too late. It is not until years or decades later that we learn how this has affected our whole world, other cultures, history, and the future. Sudan is in Africa which is far from the United States. Many people say why should we (the United States) help them, where is Britain and France? My answer would be who cares about what other countries are doing, if we responded; everyone will surely follow or give us the necessary support we need to stop this. Sudan is a severely underdeveloped in the South meaning that most of it is desert or farm land. Sudan is also the home of the Nile River. Who knows what kind of cures lie in this undeveloped land and by the Nile? If we do not prevent these killings from continuing, Sudan will be a heap of metal and war after math. Then we will never know what this country could have offered to its own people or the world.
How do these emotions relate to the tactics being deployed by the organization?
Since the main emotions tied to the Save Darfur movement are love and compassion, the tactics used to get people involved are quite simple. I think the tactic is to get the word out any way you can: posters, T.V. shows, newspapers, magazines, websites, word-of-mouth-, etc. Once people know what’s going on, they cannot help wanting to become involved. A year ago, I knew something bad was going on in Africa, but I did not know exactly what was happening. I asked my friends, parents, and even some professors at ASU and no one could give me a ‘for sure’ answer. Now that I know what’s occurring here, I let everyone I come into contact know. I have ignited emotion in many of my friends and family members who have then gone online to sign the Save Darfur Petition and purchased Save Darfur clothing. Today, I was standing in line at the gas station and a man in front of me was about to buy a 2 liter of Diet Coke (this is a true story). The line was super long and I knew I had a few minutes to wait so I said to the man, “Sir, did you know that by buying that Diet Coke you are supporting a company that is contributing to genocide?” He did not know what I was talking about or how to even respond, so I just kept talking. I told him about China’s involvement with Sudan, how Coca-Cola is sponsoring the Olympics this summer, etc. Right before it was his turn to make a purchase, the man traded in his Diet Coke for a Diet Pepsi. I felt victorious. That’s all this movement needs is to get the word out because once people really know what’s going on, they cannot help but involve their emotions. Who knows how many people that man will inform about Darfur? Whether it is one, ten, or none, I got the word out.
Does the “face” the organization puts forth to the public differ from that presented to members or potential recruits? If so, how?
I do not think the Darfur “face” differs in public from the one that is presented in private. In other movements, like the Gay Rights movement, I could see the public face being different than the one presented to members. Perhaps the way they talk to one another in a meeting is different than the way they speak to each other in a public setting or public protest. If they would have acted like they did in private, people may find it offensive and may not want to support the movement based on that sole fact. I do not believe this is the case for Darfur. Since the Save Darfur movement is so globally recognized, it must have the same ‘face’ everywhere.
Concentrating on Bernstein’s and Jasper’s chapters, how do the emotions and tactics that currently are sanctioned in the social movement you are following, i.e., the “strategic deployment of identities” in that social movement relate to the larger social structure (or culture) in which the movement is taking place?
I think politics have definitely played a role in making the movement known in societies since President Bush will be out of office in a few months. The movie Darfur Now hits theaters November 2nd, 2008. Only two days before the Presidential election. I believe they planned to release the movie around this time because people will be aware of the situation and will want a President who will help these people. Darfur will be advertised all around the time of the Summer Olympics in August and then the movie Darfur Now around election time; October/November.
Rallies are a tactic that has lost its popularity, at least with the Save Darfur movement. There are some rallies, but they are only in big scities in the United States like Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, etc. I think rallies are not that popular anymore because people do not have time. American lives are hectic and people want to use their spare time to relax. It’s easier for someone to jump on the internet at home or at work to make a donation or buy a hat. You can pay with a credit card, it takes under ten minutes, and you feel good about it afterwards. The internet is also used to provide people with factual, day-to-day information. This can help keep people emotionally involved because they know what is going on with movement and with Darufr. Because mass media keeps people so well informed, calls do not need to be made to tell people about a protest or movement meeting. Now a person can just send out an e-mail because they will have everyone on a mailing list.
These tactics were chosen over others due to their efficiency. The internet and mass e-mails are quick, easy, and low costs which allows for more time to be focused in other places than communication. Movies are also a great way to reach people. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made Americans and Congress realize we need to change our ways because we are damaging earth. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was very successful and made people question the President, his intentions, the events of that day, and our War on Terror. The craze of reality shows on television has pushed its way into the movie sector of our society which is what makes these movies so popular.
I think there are many emotions in the Save Darfur movement that attract protestors. I think one of the emotions that attract people to the Save Darfur movement is love for mankind. Love for the victims of Darfur leads to compassion for these people that did nothing to trigger the horrific events that have happened to them, their friends, their homes, and country. I think love and compassion is responsible for drawing people towards this movement and is also responsible for keeping people involved. People can only imagine the plight of others and they develop a desire to help them (p.159). Grief, sorrow, and loss are other emotions that draw to people to Save Darfur. People who have been victims of past genocides, or people who know victims of past genocides, resonate with these emotions and Darfur. They have experienced these ‘sad’ emotions and perhaps by becoming involved, they believe they can prevent others from expienecing them. Fear and dread are also among the emotions present in the Save Darfur movement. James A. Jasper says that “fear and dread arise from a sense of threat to one’s daily routines or moral beliefs; they can paralyze but also be developed into outrage” (p.159). For me, knowing about Darfur is a threat to my moral beliefs and is the reason why I have continued to follow this movement for an over a year now. I believe in helping people who cannot necessarily help themselves. Darfurians cannot help themselves because they have no one to turn to. Their own government is responsible for supplying the weapons that are being used to kill them.
I took a class at Arizona State University called Genocide, The Holocaust, and Human Rights (JUS 394). The information taught in this class was about all the genocides that ever happened in the world. What was common with every case of genocide is: that when genocide is occurring, people/governments respond so slowly and it is always too late. It is not until years or decades later that we learn how this has affected our whole world, other cultures, history, and the future. Sudan is in Africa which is far from the United States. Many people say why should we (the United States) help them, where is Britain and France? My answer would be who cares about what other countries are doing, if we responded; everyone will surely follow or give us the necessary support we need to stop this. Sudan is a severely underdeveloped in the South meaning that most of it is desert or farm land. Sudan is also the home of the Nile River. Who knows what kind of cures lie in this undeveloped land and by the Nile? If we do not prevent these killings from continuing, Sudan will be a heap of metal and war after math. Then we will never know what this country could have offered to its own people or the world.
How do these emotions relate to the tactics being deployed by the organization?
Since the main emotions tied to the Save Darfur movement are love and compassion, the tactics used to get people involved are quite simple. I think the tactic is to get the word out any way you can: posters, T.V. shows, newspapers, magazines, websites, word-of-mouth-, etc. Once people know what’s going on, they cannot help wanting to become involved. A year ago, I knew something bad was going on in Africa, but I did not know exactly what was happening. I asked my friends, parents, and even some professors at ASU and no one could give me a ‘for sure’ answer. Now that I know what’s occurring here, I let everyone I come into contact know. I have ignited emotion in many of my friends and family members who have then gone online to sign the Save Darfur Petition and purchased Save Darfur clothing. Today, I was standing in line at the gas station and a man in front of me was about to buy a 2 liter of Diet Coke (this is a true story). The line was super long and I knew I had a few minutes to wait so I said to the man, “Sir, did you know that by buying that Diet Coke you are supporting a company that is contributing to genocide?” He did not know what I was talking about or how to even respond, so I just kept talking. I told him about China’s involvement with Sudan, how Coca-Cola is sponsoring the Olympics this summer, etc. Right before it was his turn to make a purchase, the man traded in his Diet Coke for a Diet Pepsi. I felt victorious. That’s all this movement needs is to get the word out because once people really know what’s going on, they cannot help but involve their emotions. Who knows how many people that man will inform about Darfur? Whether it is one, ten, or none, I got the word out.
Does the “face” the organization puts forth to the public differ from that presented to members or potential recruits? If so, how?
I do not think the Darfur “face” differs in public from the one that is presented in private. In other movements, like the Gay Rights movement, I could see the public face being different than the one presented to members. Perhaps the way they talk to one another in a meeting is different than the way they speak to each other in a public setting or public protest. If they would have acted like they did in private, people may find it offensive and may not want to support the movement based on that sole fact. I do not believe this is the case for Darfur. Since the Save Darfur movement is so globally recognized, it must have the same ‘face’ everywhere.
Concentrating on Bernstein’s and Jasper’s chapters, how do the emotions and tactics that currently are sanctioned in the social movement you are following, i.e., the “strategic deployment of identities” in that social movement relate to the larger social structure (or culture) in which the movement is taking place?
I think politics have definitely played a role in making the movement known in societies since President Bush will be out of office in a few months. The movie Darfur Now hits theaters November 2nd, 2008. Only two days before the Presidential election. I believe they planned to release the movie around this time because people will be aware of the situation and will want a President who will help these people. Darfur will be advertised all around the time of the Summer Olympics in August and then the movie Darfur Now around election time; October/November.
Rallies are a tactic that has lost its popularity, at least with the Save Darfur movement. There are some rallies, but they are only in big scities in the United States like Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, etc. I think rallies are not that popular anymore because people do not have time. American lives are hectic and people want to use their spare time to relax. It’s easier for someone to jump on the internet at home or at work to make a donation or buy a hat. You can pay with a credit card, it takes under ten minutes, and you feel good about it afterwards. The internet is also used to provide people with factual, day-to-day information. This can help keep people emotionally involved because they know what is going on with movement and with Darufr. Because mass media keeps people so well informed, calls do not need to be made to tell people about a protest or movement meeting. Now a person can just send out an e-mail because they will have everyone on a mailing list.
These tactics were chosen over others due to their efficiency. The internet and mass e-mails are quick, easy, and low costs which allows for more time to be focused in other places than communication. Movies are also a great way to reach people. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made Americans and Congress realize we need to change our ways because we are damaging earth. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was very successful and made people question the President, his intentions, the events of that day, and our War on Terror. The craze of reality shows on television has pushed its way into the movie sector of our society which is what makes these movies so popular.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Opinion Post for Assignment #2
When thinking of the ideal figurehead for the 2008 women’s right movement, only one person comes to mind: Eva Peron. Eva Peron (a.k.a. Evita) was the wife of Juan Domingo Peron who was the President of Argentina in the early 1950s. She became a very powerful voice for labor rights in Argentina and founded the first female political party, the Female Peronist Party. Because of her position, Eva was able to bring the problems of the people to her President husband who had the power to make the necessary changes. Eva also fought for women’s suffrage in Argentina, which is why I believe she would be successful in leading the 2008 women’s right movement. She is intelligent; soft, but well-spoken; and wants to make a difference in the lives of ‘common’ people. As far as her race, religion, and age, I would not change any of it if I were to resurrect her so she would be able to lead this movement. Her politics combined nationalism with social democracy in the 1940’s, but I think today I would make her be a democrat and very liberal.
One benefit of having an iconic figure/celebrity tied to a social movement is that people feel like they can identify with them. I believe people feel better connected with individuals who have been in the public eye since stories have been written about various aspects of their life. Some potential downfalls are if that person makes a mistake, for instance, they say the wrong word or were affiliated with something that is/was publicly controversial in the past; it would be reflected negatively onto the movement. The 2008 Presidential election is a perfect example. Statements that Hillary and Obama made six years ago are being brought up today and could affect either person’s chance of winning the democrat nomination or could affect the chance of a democrat winning the office at all. Perhaps some people would not like Eva’s past political beliefs of nationalism because nationalism is sometimes tied to patriotism. I think the idea of patriotism over the past seven years in the United States has resulted in wars, our national deficit is in the billions, and now we’re in a recession because of it. I think the American people want someone who is on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to patriotism. I’m not saying we want people who are unpatriotic in charge, but patriotic ideals (“they bombed us, so let’s bomb them; referring to 9/11 attacks and the President tying them to the invasion of Iraq) has gotten the U.S. in a lot of trouble. People involved with the 2008 women’s movement might be apprehensive once they learn about Eva’s past ties with nationalism, but I believe they would get over it since she made so many positive advancements for her Argentinean women in the 1950s.
I think if Claudette Colvin spearheaded the Montgomery Bus Boycott instead of Rosa Parks, it would not have been as successful at all! I think Rosa’s ‘no’ was more powerful than Claudette’s ‘no’ based on the events which occurred after they both refused to get up. Claudette was taken off the bus kicking and screaming for which she was charged with assault. Rosa, on the other hand, left when the authorities came onto the bus to retrieve her, but she did make a scene by kicking or screaming. Claudette’s response used Black Panther Party tactics, whether she wanted to or not, she was angry and lashing out. People do not respond to anger and that’s why when Rosa said ‘no,’ she really meant it. She was not upset or vengeful towards white people anymore, she just wanted to sit because she was tired and her feet hurt. Claudette, who is twelve years older than Rosa, wanted the same thing, but when she did not get what she wanted, she threw a tantrum like a five year old. No one listens to five year old when they are tantruming because they’re in a temporary state of craziness where nothing and no one can reach them. Rosa, even though she probably wanted to act like Claudette did, refrained herself. She remained “calm, cool, and collected” so people responded positively to her actions versus Claudette’s which is why she was the perfect candidate to lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Our book states that all committed activists sense their commitment sets them apart from the majority of citizens and the extreme case occurs when activism requires illegal actions (p.150). Rosa’s actions prompted the Montgomery Bus Boycott in which many protesters and activists became outlaws by committing this one illegal act together.
One benefit of having an iconic figure/celebrity tied to a social movement is that people feel like they can identify with them. I believe people feel better connected with individuals who have been in the public eye since stories have been written about various aspects of their life. Some potential downfalls are if that person makes a mistake, for instance, they say the wrong word or were affiliated with something that is/was publicly controversial in the past; it would be reflected negatively onto the movement. The 2008 Presidential election is a perfect example. Statements that Hillary and Obama made six years ago are being brought up today and could affect either person’s chance of winning the democrat nomination or could affect the chance of a democrat winning the office at all. Perhaps some people would not like Eva’s past political beliefs of nationalism because nationalism is sometimes tied to patriotism. I think the idea of patriotism over the past seven years in the United States has resulted in wars, our national deficit is in the billions, and now we’re in a recession because of it. I think the American people want someone who is on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to patriotism. I’m not saying we want people who are unpatriotic in charge, but patriotic ideals (“they bombed us, so let’s bomb them; referring to 9/11 attacks and the President tying them to the invasion of Iraq) has gotten the U.S. in a lot of trouble. People involved with the 2008 women’s movement might be apprehensive once they learn about Eva’s past ties with nationalism, but I believe they would get over it since she made so many positive advancements for her Argentinean women in the 1950s.
I think if Claudette Colvin spearheaded the Montgomery Bus Boycott instead of Rosa Parks, it would not have been as successful at all! I think Rosa’s ‘no’ was more powerful than Claudette’s ‘no’ based on the events which occurred after they both refused to get up. Claudette was taken off the bus kicking and screaming for which she was charged with assault. Rosa, on the other hand, left when the authorities came onto the bus to retrieve her, but she did make a scene by kicking or screaming. Claudette’s response used Black Panther Party tactics, whether she wanted to or not, she was angry and lashing out. People do not respond to anger and that’s why when Rosa said ‘no,’ she really meant it. She was not upset or vengeful towards white people anymore, she just wanted to sit because she was tired and her feet hurt. Claudette, who is twelve years older than Rosa, wanted the same thing, but when she did not get what she wanted, she threw a tantrum like a five year old. No one listens to five year old when they are tantruming because they’re in a temporary state of craziness where nothing and no one can reach them. Rosa, even though she probably wanted to act like Claudette did, refrained herself. She remained “calm, cool, and collected” so people responded positively to her actions versus Claudette’s which is why she was the perfect candidate to lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Our book states that all committed activists sense their commitment sets them apart from the majority of citizens and the extreme case occurs when activism requires illegal actions (p.150). Rosa’s actions prompted the Montgomery Bus Boycott in which many protesters and activists became outlaws by committing this one illegal act together.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Text-Based Assignment #2
Can the social movement you have chosen to follow be said to have a particular collective identity or “frame (s)”? What are these?
I believe the frame of my social movement is the realities of genocide. People resonate feelings with genocide because so much is known about past genocides. As soon as I hear the word genocide, I think about the Holocaust and Rwanda. Darfur is continuously referred to as “the new Rwanda.” A movie was made both about the Holocaust and Rwanda (Schindler’s List and Hotel Rwanda), and I bet people recall scenes of those movies when hearing the word genocide and thinking about the helpless civilians in Darfur. The collective identity of people involved in the Darfur social movement is the wish to end genocide. People are attracted to this particular movement because it is framed by the word genocide. Perhaps people feel guilty about not reacting to past genocides quick enough and are trying to make-up for their mistakes with the Darfur movement.
Compare and contrast the framing of the social movement you are following to those of the pro-life movement and the environmental movement. Does the movement you have chosen seem to have a particular iconic “face,” such as Rosa Parks or Cindy Sheehan?
Both the Save Darfur movement and the Pro-life movement focus on helping people who are being killed. Some people believe individuals who have abortions or take birth control are killing people and destructing society. The end goals of both of these movements are to save lives. They also differ from one another because frame work of Save Darfur is based on genocide (ethnic discrimination) whereas the Pro-life movement’s framework wants people to fight for a person who has not yet begun to have a social dimension to their life (p.145). A common factor shared by the Save Darfur and the Environmental movement is that both are trying to reach goals on a global issue. In order to protect the environment, everyone has to become involved and do something. In order to protect Darfurians, many countries and their leaders need to become involved to push China towards taking some action. The Pro-life movement is more of an American goal and not a global goal because the United States has the most relaxed laws when it comes to abortion/contraception when compared with the world.
The Darfur movement has a few iconic “faces”: George Clooney, Mia Farrow, and Steven Spielberg. George Clooney has gone on Oprah’s television show to inform people about the situation in Darfur and he has also spoken at many rallies. Mia Farrow’s point of focus regarding Darfur is the refugee situation occurring in East Chad. Over 2.5 million people are currently living in refugee camps in East Chad since that’s where Sudan and Chad share a border (Darfur is located on the western side of Sudan). Steven Spielberg is the newest celebrity spokesman of the Darfur social movement. Spielberg arrived in China since he was employed by the Chinese to be the Olympic artistic director. Upon arrival he learned much about Darfur, Sudan, and China’s lack of actions taken towards both. Spielberg, a Jewish man and director of Schindler’s List, was so upset that he asked China to take immediate action otherwise he would leave. The Chinese government did not fulfill his requests so Spielberg quit his job and returned to the United States.
Does the social movement appear to have strategies for attracting and retaining members, and what are these strategies?
I think the strategy for this issue is to just get the word out. News broadcasts, television specials, and the internet are all ways of mass communication that help this movement. Celebrity involvement always helps a cause because, for some reason people seem to believe genocide is really occurring when George Clooney states it, but not when President George W. Bush says so. But who can blame society for not believing Bush after all the lies he told? This movement also uses clothing items to get the word out. Online anyone who has a credit or debit card can buy shirts, hats, or wristbands (buy them here -->http://yhst-88482264721289.stores.yahoo.net/sadawr.html) that say Save Darfur or the movement’s slogan “Not On My Watch.” This is a great approach because it provides walking signs, who are the people that wear these items, while razing funds for the movement and the victims.
Describe the persons who have been primarily responsible for framing the social movement you are following and the persons who might join the movement. What are the salient characteristics such as race, gender, socioeconomic class, religion, political affiliation that would describe persons who join the social movement?
In 2004, after the US Congress and President Bush issued a statement that genocide was occurring in Darfur, well-organized Jewish groups and student activists brought the Darfur issue to a new level of attention (Newsweek). The United States Holocaust Museum and the American Jewish World Service helped put this movement in the public eye. Once the movement gained momentum, specific groups and organizations developed which focused only on Darfur and genocide: Dream for Darfur; Save Darfur Coalition; Students Taking Action Now Darfur (STAND); Team Darfur and many more.
Some theories state that individuals who feel alienated or marginalized are the most likely people to join social movements. I believe the people who join the Save Darfur movement are likely to be of African descent, Christian, a student, a women, or any who has the same ethnicity of a victim of genocide (I mean Jewish, Vietnamese, Rwandans, etc). I think African people and Christians are likely to join since the victims in Darfur practice Christianity and are of African descent. Students seem to engage a lot more social movements for many reasons: teachers talk about recent stories in the news and engage classes in discussions or debts. They may have more time on their since they are going to school and likely to be young and without a family/serious job. They have more time to give and have to complete projects where they main learn a lot about an injustice that they want to change (i.e. this class). I believe women are more likely to join than men because they feel a sense of shared identity. When the janwajeed commit their genocidal acts they do it systematically. They invade the village, set homes on fire, kill the men, and rape the women. It is extremely sad, but true, so the majority of living survivors are women and children. Victims of past genocides and their family members are likely to get involved because they also share the same identity in a way.
What are the consequences of the movement you are studying being framed in this particular way? Who may be excluded?
The consequence of the way the Save Darfur movement is framed could result in contradictory actions. The people committing genocide in Darfur are the janwajeed and the majority of them are Arab Muslim. Perhaps if an Arab Muslim wanted to become part of this social movement people may exclude him because of his shared ethnicity. This would be ironic because the reason this movement happened is due to intolerance and un-acceptance of a group of people based on their ethnicity: no ethnic discrimination! Another group which could be ethnically discriminated against is anyone who's Chinese. The movement looks down negatively on China because they are providing money which is fueling this fire. They buy 2/3 of Sudan’s oil and they money which buys that oil is then being used to buy guns and other weapons. Some people who are a part of the Save Darfur movement may not want a person who is Chinese involved. These are both possibilities and that’s why ‘perhaps’ and ‘could’ is used a lot. I think the movement would actually embrace these people and maybe they have better ideas of how to reach the people who share the same ethnic background as them. Other people that could be excluded are someone who works for or is affiliated with Nike or Johnson & Johnson. Rallies were held in May of this year in order for people and consumer’s of these products to voice that they did not want them to sponsor the Olympics, to advertise in anyway, or provide products/services. If someone who is a part of these corporations wants to join the movement some people could want to exclude them due to their affiliations, but again I think this would be an advantage.
Are there ways in which the social movement you have chosen might be re-framed to be more inclusive?
I think the Save Darfur social movement is an inclusive as it can get. Since this is a world problem, the only way to create a strong enough force is in numbers. Save Darfur will not discriminate against anyone who wants to join because the movement needs all the help it can get. I think this social movement has done its job so far as raising awareness and getting people involved enough to want to do something. Right now, we just need to push our elected officials and government to make China change their actions anyway they can without creating a huge problem.
Newsweek. Packing a Tragedy. 26 Oct. 2007 Newsweek. 12 Jun. 2008. <http://www.newsweek.com/id/62115>
I believe the frame of my social movement is the realities of genocide. People resonate feelings with genocide because so much is known about past genocides. As soon as I hear the word genocide, I think about the Holocaust and Rwanda. Darfur is continuously referred to as “the new Rwanda.” A movie was made both about the Holocaust and Rwanda (Schindler’s List and Hotel Rwanda), and I bet people recall scenes of those movies when hearing the word genocide and thinking about the helpless civilians in Darfur. The collective identity of people involved in the Darfur social movement is the wish to end genocide. People are attracted to this particular movement because it is framed by the word genocide. Perhaps people feel guilty about not reacting to past genocides quick enough and are trying to make-up for their mistakes with the Darfur movement.
Compare and contrast the framing of the social movement you are following to those of the pro-life movement and the environmental movement. Does the movement you have chosen seem to have a particular iconic “face,” such as Rosa Parks or Cindy Sheehan?
Both the Save Darfur movement and the Pro-life movement focus on helping people who are being killed. Some people believe individuals who have abortions or take birth control are killing people and destructing society. The end goals of both of these movements are to save lives. They also differ from one another because frame work of Save Darfur is based on genocide (ethnic discrimination) whereas the Pro-life movement’s framework wants people to fight for a person who has not yet begun to have a social dimension to their life (p.145). A common factor shared by the Save Darfur and the Environmental movement is that both are trying to reach goals on a global issue. In order to protect the environment, everyone has to become involved and do something. In order to protect Darfurians, many countries and their leaders need to become involved to push China towards taking some action. The Pro-life movement is more of an American goal and not a global goal because the United States has the most relaxed laws when it comes to abortion/contraception when compared with the world.
The Darfur movement has a few iconic “faces”: George Clooney, Mia Farrow, and Steven Spielberg. George Clooney has gone on Oprah’s television show to inform people about the situation in Darfur and he has also spoken at many rallies. Mia Farrow’s point of focus regarding Darfur is the refugee situation occurring in East Chad. Over 2.5 million people are currently living in refugee camps in East Chad since that’s where Sudan and Chad share a border (Darfur is located on the western side of Sudan). Steven Spielberg is the newest celebrity spokesman of the Darfur social movement. Spielberg arrived in China since he was employed by the Chinese to be the Olympic artistic director. Upon arrival he learned much about Darfur, Sudan, and China’s lack of actions taken towards both. Spielberg, a Jewish man and director of Schindler’s List, was so upset that he asked China to take immediate action otherwise he would leave. The Chinese government did not fulfill his requests so Spielberg quit his job and returned to the United States.
Does the social movement appear to have strategies for attracting and retaining members, and what are these strategies?
I think the strategy for this issue is to just get the word out. News broadcasts, television specials, and the internet are all ways of mass communication that help this movement. Celebrity involvement always helps a cause because, for some reason people seem to believe genocide is really occurring when George Clooney states it, but not when President George W. Bush says so. But who can blame society for not believing Bush after all the lies he told? This movement also uses clothing items to get the word out. Online anyone who has a credit or debit card can buy shirts, hats, or wristbands (buy them here -->http://yhst-88482264721289.stores.yahoo.net/sadawr.html) that say Save Darfur or the movement’s slogan “Not On My Watch.” This is a great approach because it provides walking signs, who are the people that wear these items, while razing funds for the movement and the victims.
Describe the persons who have been primarily responsible for framing the social movement you are following and the persons who might join the movement. What are the salient characteristics such as race, gender, socioeconomic class, religion, political affiliation that would describe persons who join the social movement?
In 2004, after the US Congress and President Bush issued a statement that genocide was occurring in Darfur, well-organized Jewish groups and student activists brought the Darfur issue to a new level of attention (Newsweek). The United States Holocaust Museum and the American Jewish World Service helped put this movement in the public eye. Once the movement gained momentum, specific groups and organizations developed which focused only on Darfur and genocide: Dream for Darfur; Save Darfur Coalition; Students Taking Action Now Darfur (STAND); Team Darfur and many more.
Some theories state that individuals who feel alienated or marginalized are the most likely people to join social movements. I believe the people who join the Save Darfur movement are likely to be of African descent, Christian, a student, a women, or any who has the same ethnicity of a victim of genocide (I mean Jewish, Vietnamese, Rwandans, etc). I think African people and Christians are likely to join since the victims in Darfur practice Christianity and are of African descent. Students seem to engage a lot more social movements for many reasons: teachers talk about recent stories in the news and engage classes in discussions or debts. They may have more time on their since they are going to school and likely to be young and without a family/serious job. They have more time to give and have to complete projects where they main learn a lot about an injustice that they want to change (i.e. this class). I believe women are more likely to join than men because they feel a sense of shared identity. When the janwajeed commit their genocidal acts they do it systematically. They invade the village, set homes on fire, kill the men, and rape the women. It is extremely sad, but true, so the majority of living survivors are women and children. Victims of past genocides and their family members are likely to get involved because they also share the same identity in a way.
What are the consequences of the movement you are studying being framed in this particular way? Who may be excluded?
The consequence of the way the Save Darfur movement is framed could result in contradictory actions. The people committing genocide in Darfur are the janwajeed and the majority of them are Arab Muslim. Perhaps if an Arab Muslim wanted to become part of this social movement people may exclude him because of his shared ethnicity. This would be ironic because the reason this movement happened is due to intolerance and un-acceptance of a group of people based on their ethnicity: no ethnic discrimination! Another group which could be ethnically discriminated against is anyone who's Chinese. The movement looks down negatively on China because they are providing money which is fueling this fire. They buy 2/3 of Sudan’s oil and they money which buys that oil is then being used to buy guns and other weapons. Some people who are a part of the Save Darfur movement may not want a person who is Chinese involved. These are both possibilities and that’s why ‘perhaps’ and ‘could’ is used a lot. I think the movement would actually embrace these people and maybe they have better ideas of how to reach the people who share the same ethnic background as them. Other people that could be excluded are someone who works for or is affiliated with Nike or Johnson & Johnson. Rallies were held in May of this year in order for people and consumer’s of these products to voice that they did not want them to sponsor the Olympics, to advertise in anyway, or provide products/services. If someone who is a part of these corporations wants to join the movement some people could want to exclude them due to their affiliations, but again I think this would be an advantage.
Are there ways in which the social movement you have chosen might be re-framed to be more inclusive?
I think the Save Darfur social movement is an inclusive as it can get. Since this is a world problem, the only way to create a strong enough force is in numbers. Save Darfur will not discriminate against anyone who wants to join because the movement needs all the help it can get. I think this social movement has done its job so far as raising awareness and getting people involved enough to want to do something. Right now, we just need to push our elected officials and government to make China change their actions anyway they can without creating a huge problem.
Newsweek. Packing a Tragedy. 26 Oct. 2007 Newsweek. 12 Jun. 2008. <http://www.newsweek.com/id/62115>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
